View Poll Results: Is homosexuality "normak" and "natural"?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • Homosexuality is normal

    68 47.22%
  • Homosexuality is not normal

    46 31.94%
  • Homosexuality is natural

    92 63.89%
  • Homosexuality is not natural

    19 13.19%
  • Other/unsure

    12 8.33%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 39 of 58 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 574

Thread: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

  1. #381
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    I think part of the disagreement here is that "reasons" has different meanings. A reason can refer to intent (why did you quit your job?) or it can refer to how something came to happen (why won't my car start). It's an important distinction because only conscious beings have intent (it's not like your car is refusing to start because she's pissed she caught you looking at the neighbor's new BMW ).

    So, since evolution is not a conscious being (if you want to talk about evolution being an extension of God's will, fine but it's God's intent then, not evolution's and that's a whole other can of worms anyway) and cannot have intent, "why" questions about evolution are better asked as "how" questions. Not "Why does sex feel good" but rather "How it came to be that sex feels good". Evolution explains how it came to be, not why. When sex feels good to an animal, that animal will tend to procreate more often, and over time the animal that procreates more often will come to be more prevalent. That is how sex came to feel good to humans. There is no "why" sex feels good. Evolution didn't intend for sex to feel good; evolution doesn't intend anything. Evolution is just an explanation for how the animals that currently exist came to exist in the state that they do.

    It's important to be mindful of this distinction because it avoids burdening questions about what we should do with considerations of what evolution intends us to do - that's nonsensical, we shouldn't care about what evolution "intends" us to do because evolution doesn't intend anything, it can't intend. (on a side note, even if evolution did have an intent, so what? Why should we do what evolution wants? **** her. ). Evolution isn't any sort of guide on what we should do. That's ultimately up to us and to decide according to our own wishes and goals.

    Quite frankly I (and most probably most people) don't give two ****s about evolution or spreading my genes. I have sex because I enjoy it. If I ever have kids it's going to be because I want the experience of raising children and because I want to help give another person the experience of life, not because evolution wants me to propagate my genes.

  2. #382
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by the_recruit View Post
    It's important to be mindful of this distinction because it avoids burdening questions about what we should do with considerations of what evolution intends us to do - that's nonsensical, we shouldn't care about what evolution "intends" us to do because evolution doesn't intend anything, it can't intend. (on a side note, even if evolution did have an intent, so what? Why should we do what evolution wants? **** her. ). Evolution isn't any sort of guide on what we should do. That's ultimately up to us and to decide according to our own wishes and goals.

    Quite frankly I (and most probably most people) don't give two ****s about evolution or spreading my genes. I have sex because I enjoy it. If I ever have kids it's going to be because I want the experience of raising children and because I want to help give another person the experience of life, not because evolution wants me to propagate my genes.
    Simply put, because going against evolution tends to result in rather poor outcomes much of the time.

    Attitudes along the lines of what you describe above have basically lead populations to go into free fall in many parts of the world, and it's unclear when, if ever, they will recover.

    Sure, you can rebel against the natural order of things if you want. However, if it's only going to lead to death in the end, what's the point?

  3. #383
    Sage
    opendebate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,315

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    You're not getting it. On no level whatsoever does what you're suggesting work if the reproductive element is removed.

    People didn't start rubbing up against one another for no reason just because it felt good, and then magically discover that babies came afterwards.

    What almost certainly happened was that some species way back when was pleasurelessly having sex, and some members of the species simply happened to adapt in such a way that it felt "good" as well. Those individuals were more likely to pass on their genes than the ones who reproduced without pleasure, and so their lineage survived where the others did not.

    This is basic cause and effect here. You've simply got the order backwards.
    So you're suggesting that at some very primitive point in our evolution, sex was purely motivated by the instinct to procreate and that the pleasurable aspect of it evolved later by chance? Then, because it felt good for some those animals did it more often so they came to outnumber the species that did it less?
    "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers" - Voltaire
    "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self" -Hemingway

  4. #384
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Because having things forcibly inserted into a tight and naturally unlubricated muscular sphincter which is pretty specifically meant to keep what's inside the body in, and what's outside the body out, tends to be painful, and sometimes even dangerous, perhaps?
    Bingo. Anyone that doesn't see that is not intended as an entry point is a bit slow on the uptake.

  5. #385
    Sage
    opendebate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,315

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Because having things forcibly inserted into a tight and naturally unlubricated muscular sphincter which is pretty specifically meant to keep what's inside the body in, and what's outside the body out, tends to be painful, and sometimes even dangerous, perhaps?
    Um, no. Have you read about this at all?
    "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers" - Voltaire
    "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self" -Hemingway

  6. #386
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by the_recruit View Post
    I think part of the disagreement here is that "reasons" has different meanings. A reason can refer to intent (why did you quit your job?) or it can refer to how something came to happen (why won't my car start). It's an important distinction because only conscious beings have intent (it's not like your car is refusing to start because she's pissed she caught you looking at the neighbor's new BMW ).

    So, since evolution is not a conscious being (if you want to talk about evolution being an extension of God's will, fine but it's God's intent then, not evolution's and that's a whole other can of worms anyway) and cannot have intent, "why" questions about evolution are better asked as "how" questions. Not "Why does sex feel good" but rather "How it came to be that sex feels good". Evolution explains how it came to be, not why. When sex feels good to an animal, that animal will tend to procreate more often, and over time the animal that procreates more often will come to be more prevalent. That is how sex came to feel good to humans. There is no "why" sex feels good. Evolution didn't intend for sex to feel good; evolution doesn't intend anything. Evolution is just an explanation for how the animals that currently exist came to exist in the state that they do.

    It's important to be mindful of this distinction because it avoids burdening questions about what we should do with considerations of what evolution intends us to do - that's nonsensical, we shouldn't care about what evolution "intends" us to do because evolution doesn't intend anything, it can't intend. (on a side note, even if evolution did have an intent, so what? Why should we do what evolution wants? **** her. ). Evolution isn't any sort of guide on what we should do. That's ultimately up to us and to decide according to our own wishes and goals.

    Quite frankly I (and most probably most people) don't give two ****s about evolution or spreading my genes. I have sex because I enjoy it. If I ever have kids it's going to be because I want the experience of raising children and because I want to help give another person the experience of life, not because evolution wants me to propagate my genes.
    Yes, well you may have sex because it feels good, but mother nature has her own reasons for sex feeling good. I believe it is designed to feel good so that you will want to do it. Of course, because we are intelligent creatures, we are aware that sex leads to babies, so we use precautions. It's not like it's something you would be aware of anyways. MOST men are attracted to beautiful healthy-looking and young women. There are reasons for this.

  7. #387
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by opendebate View Post
    So you're suggesting that at some very primitive point in our evolution, sex was purely motivated by the instinct to procreate and that the pleasurable aspect of it evolved later by chance? Then, because it felt good for some those animals did it more often so they came to outnumber the species that did it less?
    Precisely.

    It's frankly still motivated primarily by the intrinsic need to pass on one's genes even today. Pleasure is simply the incentive.
    Last edited by Gathomas88; 07-16-14 at 12:33 AM.

  8. #388
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Charleston, South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    28,659

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by opendebate View Post
    Um, no. Have you read about this at all?
    Yeah, I have. It's not a vagina.

    The thing isn't adapted to be penetrated.

  9. #389
    Sage
    opendebate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,315

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Social pressure breaks down a bit when those that expect a certain behavior are not around. It's why girly boys can be all feminine around one crowd and act completely differently around another.
    and some don't. You think for one minute that the bedroom is actually the place where a man who is concerned about appearing virile and manly would be most inclined stop concerning himself with the social conventions that he believes make him appear virile and manly?? Um, no.
    "Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers" - Voltaire
    "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self" -Hemingway

  10. #390
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: Is Homosexuality "Normal" and "Natural"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gathomas88 View Post
    Simply put, because going against evolution tends to result in rather poor outcomes much of the time.

    Attitudes along the lines of what you describe above have basically lead populations to go into free fall in many parts of the world, and it's unclear when, if ever, they will recover.

    Sure, you can rebel against the natural order of things if you want. However, if it's only going to lead to death in the end, what's the point?
    That's true, sure. But in that case we're looking to evolution (and our knowledge of biology in general) as a guide for understanding how actions can help (or hinder) us in achieving our goals. But we're on our own to decide those goals in the first place.

    If we decide that we want the human race to continue after we die (as most of us do), then our knowledge of biology tells us we damn well better have sex.

Page 39 of 58 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •